Fringe on 20/8/2009 at 04:31
What the fuck?
Muzman on 20/8/2009 at 06:02
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Partially what I'm getting at, but not entirely correct. It stems from two very illogical trains of thought, as it seems to me. Not all collectivist-minded legislation is the same as socialism. I'm not quite certain where the idea of calling those on the right nazis comes from, but my guess is associated with the hyper-nationalism displayed by farthest right. It would be far more accurate to slanderize the right (as slanders go) by calling them cromwellian, or saying they are like a middle-eastern theocracy (due to the fact that they want government to enforce their own moral beliefs).
Hasn't calling the other guy a nazi been de rigeur for quite some time now? Or was that just on the internet?
The comparison is usually a lot simpler than that, I find, anyway; the right are authoritarian and nationalist, as you say. They're also known for being secretive clique-y and elitist, bending and exploiting the law to their dirty tricks. The left would see this as inclining to amoral supreme power, like the nazis. The left don't mind (or are percieved to) centralise things, creating Big Government. The right would see this as a step on the slope to losing freedom and independance (of the sort federalism was designed to preserve, I suppose). A possibly intrusive centralised bureaucracy is a nazi-esque oppressive matrix. There's probably more too.
Yeah, in either case it's pretty dumb to extrapolate straight to everyone's choice extreme, but it is kinda funny how the right and the left consisder themselves guardians of freedom against the other guys nazi tendencies. It's probably quite useful in its own blinkered way.
Anyway, what good is a slander no one understands. Cromwho-ian? Which is easier to draw on a poster, a small stache or a 17th century pikeman's helmet and a ruff?
Cromwell's legacy is also a mixed one. Parliamentarians were often a nasty bunch (see Conwy Castle) and you won't find too many Irish fans (for starters) but the interregnum saw the creation of many indelible legal and social precepts. I don't think Hitler's had quite the same treatment.
SubJeff on 20/8/2009 at 08:21
Quote Posted by Muzman
Anyway, what good is a slander no one understands. Cromwho-ian?
Hmmmm. Better throw out Machiavelli then. And start from scratch - no Byronesk poetry from now on. Byr-o-who?
Seriously, I know that we try to use a frame of reference that is familiar to all but this smacks just a little bit of anti-intellectualism. Hey, I don't claim to get all references to specific historical persons or movements but Cromwell is hardly obscure.
jay pettitt on 20/8/2009 at 09:27
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Partially what I'm getting at, but not entirely correct. It stems from two very illogical trains of thought, as it seems to me. Not all collectivist-minded legislation is the same as socialism. I'm not quite certain where the idea of calling those on the right nazis comes from, but my guess is associated with the hyper-nationalism displayed by farthest right. It would be far more accurate to slanderize the right (as slanders go) by calling them cromwellian, or saying they are like a middle-eastern theocracy (due to the fact that they want government to enforce their own moral beliefs).
Sorry? which bit of 'No, I don't think it's in the least bit amusing, I think it's tear-jerkingly sad and a pathetic waste of human potential on every level' - do you not think is entirely correct?
Seriously, seeing otherwise decent people reduced to this level of idiocy and being set against each other is harrowing. Divide et impera.
Jesus, that's manipulative, twisted and despicable and worst of all, insanely stupid. Comparing health provision to owning a luxury car? Get out. Denying children from poor families basic healthcare based on the status of their parents private health insurance? Get out of the gene pool you horrible little man. Fuck, it's not like he doesn't have the privilege of an education.
Muzman on 20/8/2009 at 15:30
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Hmmmm. Better throw out Machiavelli then. And start from scratch - no Byronesk poetry from now on. Byr-o-who?
Seriously, I know that we try to use a frame of reference that is familiar to all but this smacks just a little bit of anti-intellectualism.
That's a fairly large leap. In any case it's not me who's anti intellectual. When were apt comparisons the truck of knee-jerk political invective?
AR Master on 20/8/2009 at 15:50
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
One of the neat things about the US is there's quite a lot of variety between states. Some have publicly owned infrastructure, some have privately owned infrastructure. Publicly owned services in the US are, on average 10% more efficient than their privately owned counterparts..
hahaha GUESS AGAIN if you'd love to see an example in action of public vs private come to Toronto a month ago to watch the public sector simply stop working for absolutely insane benefits grubbing and numerous complaints that private services were heads and tails above public in the city and surrounding bourroughs
honestly if you think that giving a bunch of otherwise unemployables high paying well benefitted no skills needed jobs (gubmint jobs) and then breeding in them a sense of entitlement for that job (can't fire me, I'm in da union!) is going to somehow magically make them more efficient than a private sector one I've got this bridge in brooklin I'd like to throw you off
doctormidnight on 20/8/2009 at 16:08
if i didn't live in such a small town where protests rarely happen, I would totally load up the super-soaker and get a sign that read "my gun is always loaded, much like my incredibly tiny penis."
jay pettitt on 20/8/2009 at 16:48
Quote Posted by AR Master
hahaha
As (
http://www.appanet.org/files/PDFs/PublicPowerCostsLess.pdf) one example, in 2007 publicly owned electricity utilities in the US provided juice to their domestic customers on average 17% cheaper than investor owned utilities. Also, tecnically, Toronto isn't in the US. Also also, rumour has it that you're only 4'2" tall and afraid of heights, which brings into question your ability to throw people off bridges.
Rug Burn Junky on 20/8/2009 at 17:48
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
In a nutshell, you've got the tragedy of the commons, and no amount of Adam Smith will help you, since American healthcare is not a fair, free market - as an individual you have no bargaining power, while drug companies, hospitals, and your insurer have no particular interest in representing anything but their own bottom lines.
[...]
Sadly, I don't think the current bill will do much to discourage the kind of behaviour I outlined.
This is really the crux of it, but the conclusion that this bill won't solve the problem is overly pessimistic. The market motivations for insurance companies mean that rather than negotiating with healthcare providers to lower costs, they lower their expenses by denying coverage. The reason that a public option alleviates this problem is that it introduces a market participant that has a motivation for lowering costs by negotiating, since it is constrained from denying coverage.
Are there other ways to accomplish this? Yeah, but they mostly involve enacting an even more complicated regulatory structure on insurance companies with less predictable market distortions. Which is why the "OMG it hurts the free market" argument is so disingenuous and can be easily dismissed. The "free market" doesn't truly currently exist, and the alternative reforms would even more directly "harm the free market," so logically one must deduce these complaints are usually being forwarded to stifle debate by groups interested in maintaining the status quo (or on their behalf by lazy people with a predilection towards laissez faire arguments who haven't considered the alternatives.)
On the subject of abject hypocrisy, I think it's interesting that you're able to post that, given that it utterly disproves your point that the bill mandates Living Wills. You know, the point that you threw such a temper tantrum over initially? Do you not experience cognitive dissonance?
And this, kiddies, is yet another reason why CCCToad really has no credibility.
Starrfall on 20/8/2009 at 18:57
Quote Posted by CCCToad
It seems lego-babble, but what it means in practical terms is that they will not pay for a chair that isn't designated as "rehabilitative"
yeah totally this is a problem because
